Does having a single virtual function slow down the whole class?
Or only the call to the function that is virtual? And does the speed get affected if the virtual function is actually overwritten or not, or does this have no effect so long as it is virtual.
Having virtual functions slows down the whole class insofar as one more item of data has to be initialized, copied, … when dealing with an object of such a class. For a class with half a dozen members or so, the difference should be neglible. For a class which just contains a single char member, or no members at all, the difference might be notable.
Apart from that, it is important to note that not every call to a virtual function is a virtual function call. If you have an object of a known type, the compiler can emit code for a normal function invocation, and can even inline said function if it feels like it. It's only when you do polymorphic calls, via a pointer or reference which might point at an object of the base class or at an object of some derived class, that you need the vtable indirection and pay for it in terms of performance.
struct Foo { virtual ~Foo(); virtual int a() { return 1; } };
struct Bar: public Foo { int a() { return 2; } };
void f(Foo& arg) {
Foo x; x.a(); // non-virtual: always calls Foo::a()
Bar y; y.a(); // non-virtual: always calls Bar::a()
arg.a(); // virtual: must dispatch via vtable
Foo z = arg; // copy constructor Foo::Foo(const Foo&) will convert to Foo
z.a(); // non-virtual Foo::a, since z is a Foo, even if arg was not
}
The steps the hardware has to take are essentially the same, no matter whether the function is overwritten or not. The address of the vtable is read from the object, the function pointer retrieved from the appropriate slot, and the function called by pointer. In terms of actual performance, branch predictions might have some impact. So for example, if most of your objects refer to the same implementation of a given virtual function, then there is some chance that the branch predictor will correctly predict which function to call even before the pointer has been retrieved. But it doesn't matter which function is the common one: it could be most objects delegating to the non-overwritten base case, or most objects belonging to the same subclass and therefore delegating to the same overwritten case.
how are they implemented at a deep level?
I like the idea of jheriko to demonstrate this using a mock implementation. But I'd use C to implement something akin to the code above, so that the low level is more easily seen.
parent class Foo
typedef struct Foo_t Foo; // forward declaration
struct slotsFoo { // list all virtual functions of Foo
const void *parentVtable; // (single) inheritance
void (*destructor)(Foo*); // virtual destructor Foo::~Foo
int (*a)(Foo*); // virtual function Foo::a
};
struct Foo_t { // class Foo
const struct slotsFoo* vtable; // each instance points to vtable
};
void destructFoo(Foo* self) { } // Foo::~Foo
int aFoo(Foo* self) { return 1; } // Foo::a()
const struct slotsFoo vtableFoo = { // only one constant table
0, // no parent class
destructFoo,
aFoo
};
void constructFoo(Foo* self) { // Foo::Foo()
self->vtable = &vtableFoo; // object points to class vtable
}
void copyConstructFoo(Foo* self,
Foo* other) { // Foo::Foo(const Foo&)
self->vtable = &vtableFoo; // don't copy from other!
}
derived class Bar
typedef struct Bar_t { // class Bar
Foo base; // inherit all members of Foo
} Bar;
void destructBar(Bar* self) { } // Bar::~Bar
int aBar(Bar* self) { return 2; } // Bar::a()
const struct slotsFoo vtableBar = { // one more constant table
&vtableFoo, // can dynamic_cast to Foo
(void(*)(Foo*)) destructBar, // must cast type to avoid errors
(int(*)(Foo*)) aBar
};
void constructBar(Bar* self) { // Bar::Bar()
self->base.vtable = &vtableBar; // point to Bar vtable
}
function f performing virtual function call
void f(Foo* arg) { // same functionality as above
Foo x; constructFoo(&x); aFoo(&x);
Bar y; constructBar(&y); aBar(&y);
arg->vtable->a(arg); // virtual function call
Foo z; copyConstructFoo(&z, arg);
aFoo(&z);
destructFoo(&z);
destructBar(&y);
destructFoo(&x);
}
So you can see, a vtable is just a static block in memory, mostly containing function pointers. Every object of a polymorphic class will point to the vtable corresponding to its dynamic type. This also makes the connection between RTTI and virtual functions clearer: you can check what type a class is simply by looking at what vtable it points at. The above is simplified in many ways, like e.g. multiple inheritance, but the general concept is sound.
If arg is of type Foo* and you take arg->vtable, but is actually an object of type Bar, then you still get the correct address of the vtable. That's because the vtable is always the first element at the address of the object, no matter whether it's called vtable or base.vtable in a correctly-typed expression.
Inside the C++ Object ModelbyStanley B. Lippman. (Section 4.2, page 124-131) – Tremain